Letters

Peter Wilby claims that unions are all set in the past and they "rarely agree on anything" (Teachers' unions must put their house in order, March 11). We in Nasuwt and others have moved on. The social partnership is a radical model of progressive trade unionism. The partnership has made numerous agreements about the working conditions of teachers and is presently striving to get these established in 20,000 plus self-governing schools.

In the same issue, Will Woodward says we "jealously guard the extra access to ministers" that partnership working brings us. It is the politicians themselves who refuse to attend NUT events such as the conference. The NUT has excluded itself from these arrangements and its elected representatives tell us in no uncertain terms that the partnership has failed teachers and they have no wish to be a part of it. It seems from these two articles the NUT leadership has had a change of heart. John Mayes Nasuwt president, Widnes

While it's true that the National Union of Teachers has been excluded from the corridors of power, most other unions have been marginalised by this government (Teachers' unions must put their house in order, March 11). A different model of union "involvement" has been offered by other unions through their "partnership" with the government. On the one hand, primary teachers have gained half a day of preparation time. But on the other, the so-called remodelling agreement has allowed teaching assistants to teach classes; the new performance management criteria allow heads to reward new teachers solely on test results; and management allowances have been replaced by teaching and learning responsibility points that are based on - yes you've guessed it - test results.

The new three-year, below-inflation pay deal will reduce all teachers' living standards. In response, Nasuwt held an "indicative ballot" in which 14,000 members narrowly voted to accept. At least the NUT has offered all members a vote on the deal.

Peter Wilby is right: teachers are represented by three ineffectual trade unions, but to replace them by one large, undemocratic, government poodle of a union wouldn't make much difference. Richard Knights, Liverpool

As a teacher and lecturer for more than 40 years, I find myself in total agreement with Peter Wilby. The government has no need to divide and rule. The teachers' unions do a magnificent job for them. Peter Harrod, Lincoln

Parents' pretend choices

Fiona Millar makes a necessary point about the incompatibility of parental choice and selection, and the situation in Kent highlights that (Now and then the past drifts into view, March 11). But moving the timing of the selection test might bring a slight improvement in a generally indefensible situation. What's truly unfair is pretending parents have choices when they have practically none.

Millar and I are on the same side, but it doesn't help the cause to suggest that this question of selection timing has a totemic significance. Either way, it's merely a tinkering with the mechanics. If Kent were a school, Ofsted would put it into special measures. Of course, it would be a lot easier to abolish selection if the government had a better alternative than the chimera of parental choice. Ed Balls's belief in local cooperation offers a glimpse of a way forward. We live in hope of something more than a glimpse. Paul Brasington Folkestone, Kent

Early care that counts

If the government is determined to embrace the economy-driven fashion for institutional early childcare, the least it can do is to ensure that practitioner training, status and remuneration are commensurate with the importance that should be accorded to early childhood experience (In safe hands?, March 11).

The NVQ-type training, soon to be laced with the new bolted-on early years foundation stage framework, isn't remotely adequate. Far more thorough training needs to be designed that is appropriate to the complexities of working effectively with young children. Dr Richard House, London W3